the PROOF is in the ........pudding???......

they reached the wrong conclusion because they were disobedient.....as they still are today...
Only those Jews accepting their Christ have the veil lifted.....the others are blinded for a while longer..

Click to expand...

Funny, they say you reached the wrong conclusion because you worship a false god. Not much difference is there?

JohnR7 said:

Do you mean that you have heard me grumble and complain ALONG with the rest of you? Sorry, I will try to live my life as a better example.

Click to expand...

What's the matter, Johnny? Your "enter" key is stuck? Why not answer the whole question?

JohnR7 said:

How do I contradict myself? I made two different statements and they do not contradict each other. Do you really want to get into a discussion about how the word became flesh and dwelt among us? Do you want to get into a discussion about how we are to be living epistles?

Click to expand...

As much as I could use the laugh, I'll pass.

You've confused Christ and the Bible; mixed up the Word in its written from with the Word in its living form.

Looks like the Holy Spirit of Love and Truth is not having a good night...

Nathan Poe said:

You've confused Christ and the Bible;...

Click to expand...

You maybe mixed up about Christ and the Bible, but I am not. So what, in addition to being a scoffer and a skeptic, are you now going to become a false accusor? Why go from bad to worse, when you can go from good to better? We should never rest, untell good becomes better and better becomes best.

jobob said:

I do

Click to expand...

Jesus was a living example of the word of God. Everything God says we can do, we can do. Everything God says we can be, we can be. Jesus did not really have any advantage over us. We can not only do all that He did, He actually said that we will do greater works that even He did.

So, what did Jesus do? He went about preaching, teaching & healing the oppressed.

Matthew 4:23
And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all kinds of sickness and all kinds of disease among the people.

noticed you didnt approach the ealier part of that post...any particular reason??

Click to expand...

The quote from Paul would be pretty meaningless to a rabbinical scholar - wouldn't it?

Now, do you see the similarities between your argument that the rabbis are blinded by their disobedience and theirs that you worship a false prophet/god?

Introspection - try it some time.

jobob said:

gees Poe, I dont see any point in running a fine line of blaspheming the Spirit...

You can make your comments without doing that adn you know it.

Click to expand...

Well, let's see...

We have one man claiming to Speak on behalf of the Holy Spirit when he is clearly not, embarassing himself, his faith, and the Holy Spirit in the process.

And you have someone else mocking a self-appointed prophet.

Now, who's commiting the bigger blasphemy?

JohnR7 said:

Jesus was a living example of the word of God. Everything God says we can do, we can do.

Click to expand...

An example of the Word of God? I thought he was the word.


It's actually quite simple: Jesus was "the word made flesh;" a walking, talking, living lesson in everything God expects from us, and what we can be in His name.

The Bible is a collection of those same lessons copied down in a more convenient (and certainly more portable) Book form.

If we concede that these are both "word"s of God, which one do Christians consider the LIVING word?

Everything God says we can be, we can be. Jesus did not really have any advantage over us. We can not only do all that He did, He actually said that we will do greater works that even He did.

So, what did Jesus do? He went about preaching, teaching & healing the oppressed.

Matthew 4:23
And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all kinds of sickness and all kinds of disease among the people.

Click to expand...

And that we have done. Certainly we (and I mean Christians and non-Christians alike) have been able to preach, teach, and heal better (by which I mean, "on a larger scale") than he was able to.

For example, Jesus had twelve students. I teach about 70 on any given day.

It took millenia for Jesus' message to spread across the globe. Now all it takes is a TV camera and a sattilite.

Jesus healed miraculously, and modern medicine can't top that (certainly the resurrection is going to be a tough one to re-create ), but certainly ailments can be treated now which would've required a miracle back in Jesus' time.

jobob said:

eh? you lost me there Poe...
Go back and read the last line of the post I was responding to...
If you cant figure it out, forget it.......Im not giving you anymore ammunition to upset us.....

Click to expand...

I don't need to read it; I wrote it.

I suggest you read the entire post, not just the last line, as well as the post by John that it was in response to.

Remember, context is your friend. If it weren't, I'd have reported you for wanting to bash me with a rock.

hmmm.......let me see here.

Theres prophecies clear back in Deuteromy about God getting ticked at the Hebrew people and turning to others........the Jews missed it.

Theres prophecy all over the OT about the coming Christ.........the Jews missed it....

Jesus comes and just as prophecy fortells he is rejected by His own .......... and just as thier own texts foretold, the Jews missed Him..

Paul comes along and says ''hey, they did all this cause they didnt understand......they were blinded to the truth.....and theyre STILL blinded to the truth without Christ''

Now you expect me to deny not only the NT but the OT prophecy as well over the word of a rabbi...... not a chance in hades pal....

Click to expand...

You need to read your OT a little more carefully.

Here is an interesting article:

http://www.aish.com/spirituality/philosophy/Why_Dont_Jews_Believe_In_Jesus$.asp

So, I think that your reactionary position that they are wrong and deluded and you are right is pretty much worthless.

If you simply admit that you hold the position on faith and recognize that they hold theirs on faith as well - I would have no problem with you.

Split Rock said:

I don't know who this student is (you gave no reference for this quote) but he/she doesn't seem to be making much sense. What mysterious "internal balance or pressure" is he/she referring to? Also, how much research did this student do on evolution considering his/her PhD studies are in Biophysics?

I know of no limiting factor that prevents species (or populations) from evolving "too far from their own design." The fossil record indicates that not only individual species but entire ecosystems were different in the past. The nested hierarchy and genetic comparisons all support common decent. Clearly, if you are going to examine a population within a period of years rather than thousands of years (or even longer), you would not expect to see large scale changes like a "pigeon to a dog." (By the way, dinosaur to a pigeon would make more sense here).

Click to expand...

Sir I apologize for not quoting the source. The author's name is Cornelius Hunter. He was earning his PhD in biophysics in Illinois at the time he wrote the book in 2001; this book from which I was quoting from is called Darwin's God.

His observances about biological modification within limits is not this author's new finding or theory. Before Darwin, the great German writer-philosopher Johann Goethe (1749-1832) contended, along with French naturalist Etienne Geoffroy St. Hilaire (1772-1844), that there is in nature a law of compensation that limits biological variation. This held for Darwin, however, that species are anchored to their design--"they can drift about a bit, but they cannot continue to evolve to form a new species" (same source mentioned). Darwin didn't want to reject the notion of limited change because it was known to be true from breeding experiments. He did, however, argue that it did not apply to organisms in their natural environments. "With species in a state of nature," Darwin argued, "it can hardly be maintained that the law [of compensation] is of universal application," even though "many good observers" believed it to be true. Darwin then cites two organisms to support his position: two genera named Ibla and Proteolepas, which are barnacles. Found in Darwin's Origin (p. 150-151) Since the source is quoted I won't type out the thing. I want you to look at it if you can. Then see what you think about his support for his argument. As Darwin argued that the unique features of these two organisms show the law of compensation doesn't hold in the wild, can you see that his unspoken premise was that the unique features evolved?? Darwin presupposes the truth of evolution in order to find evidence for evolution. He doesn't illustrate how evolution might have formed these species. He was unquestionably an expert on barnacles and could describe in detail examples of highly modified species. But he "simply begs the question when he says that the distinctive structures of Ibla and Proteolepas evolved and therefore variation isn't limited in the wild." (same source)

Don't take this author's or my word for anything. Please!

go check it out for yourself.

take care.

JohnR7 said:

The world was created by God. We can learn a lot about the creator, though a study of His creation.

Romans 1:20
For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,

Click to expand...

What a shame you choose not to learn through a study of that creation. You'd rather ignore what it can teach because of your stubborn refusal to admit that YOUR interpreation of the scriptures might be wrong. Gotta watch that pride, John.

JohnR7 said:

...If it conflicts with the Bible, then it is not true science.

Click to expand...

WOW! Well, my guess is that nobody can argue with logic like that!